Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: High Court of Chancery

  1. #11
    Wow .... I am floored.

    I think the appeals process is a smoking gun with respect to this.

    I think it was said that an appeal lies as an action of admiralty.... I'll see if I can dig it up. It is from the Supreme Court case Delovio v. Boit.

    Oh snap! If all courts are really admiralty/maritime courts, bringing your case as a libel with the stating of the remedy as savings to suitors has to really get the judge's blood pressure up.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 05-22-11 at 09:11 PM.

  2. #12
    Here we go:

    As to the other reason for its not being a court of record, viz, that it proceeds according to the course of the civil law, and that an appeal, and not a writ of error, lies from its decrees

    Delovio v. Boit (1815)

  3. #13
    This echos the research of "the Informer".

  4. #14
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    And the entire Jonathan Swif Society , of which he was member .
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

  5. #15
    What Trust Guy said!

    Thanks for the correction - Howard FREEMAN not Charles WEISMAN. That is the account I was looking for.


    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    Wow .... I am floored.

    I think the appeals process is a smoking gun with respect to this.

    I think it was said that an appeal lies as an action of admiralty.... I'll see if I can dig it up. It is from the Supreme Court case Delovio v. Boit.

    Oh snap! If all courts are really admiralty/maritime courts, bringing your case as a libel with the stating of the remedy as savings to suitors has to really get the judge's blood pressure up.

    The appeals process is the bullet in that analogy. Common law is case law. - Stare decisis. If you look at the Colorado constitution you find that the only judges allowed to practice law are the county court judges.

    No supreme court justice, judge of any intermediate appellate court, district court judge, probate judge, or juvenile judge shall engage in the practice of law.
    The county court judges perform the arraignment and if the defendant is stubborn about pleading, practices law as the defendant's attorney and pleads for him. [In my persecution, that is a large component about where they screwed up by trying to prosecute me 4.5 years later. There was the district court judge (felonies are all heard in district) trying to practice law.] Too late to fall back on the county court judge's faulty arraignment.

    That aside though, the county court judge practices law and delegates the findings of fact to the jury (allegedly). If the defendant does not like that then he appeals. The appellate court will hear nothing but Authorities - common law. Mind you, the trial judge has to be careful because he has only so many brownie points before he looks bad, so the citations (authorities) that the defendant brings into the record at trial count too. But those authorities (citations) are common law too - they are citations from appellate courts.

    The appellate courts therefore form the common law. It is the opinions from the appellate court system that produces case law/common law.

    This is the beauty of the remedy and the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789! There is only a gaping window of flawed common law in American history. In Trust Guy's account from Howard FREEMAN we do not hear, Bring any case after 1938 and before 1842 and I will listen to you...

    Therefore Justice REED mitigates the rigor of the common law doctrine altogether and only agrees conditionally with BRANDEIS. He just plays down the role of the common law altogether but the appellate judges and justices are never allowed to practice law from the bench; therefore they have to abide and are bound by the Authorities outside the scope of 1842 to 1938.

    Like Bennett v. Butterworth 52 U.S. 669 - 1840. The principle that is binding today has nothing to do with slavery. But I am certain many judges would try to make you feel that your citation is worthless because the case is about slavery! Sorry about the resolution; some day when I am in the repository I will remember to get a better image:


    This is fairly cut and dry. One cannot expect a judge to abide in pre-1938 case law. However that pre-1842 law is faulty is a myth. Especially when we deal with fundamental aspects of remedy and the constitutions. Ideally then, no state can blend law and equity because the Constitution (federal) draws a distinction between them - but then the constructive trusts of the state districts comes into play in commercial matters...

    This is fascinating to write about because we are speaking of the Judiciary Act of 1789 where the namesake of this website is found - the 'saving to suitors' clause and fundamental diversity intended for the states as individual nations in compact. That is just one aspect that I find fascinating because that same Act is where the state districts were formed and in 1790 an Act was formed to put the financial obligations of the US Government on those same state districts - executed under the direction of Master Mason George WASHINGTON.

    So to tie this together cohesively I will remind you that this rare book collection, where I got the image in Post #5 from is found in the Mason Library.


    If you look closely though, you will find that here on this monumental (literally) spot where fiat currency began in America the date on those law books and this image is not 1938 - but 1935!


    Now maybe you are understanding why I jumped on that one sentence for foundation. This is a very complex topic to fully explain.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-22-11 at 11:31 PM.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    Pre 1842 . Hummm . . . I’ll need to dig out my videos taken at the 1990 Center for Action doo daww and listen to Howard’s account again. I do not recall his stating such . Then again I was somewhat fixated on the Bankruptcy and Reservations of Right aspects for some time . Bankruptcy especially after receiving an anonymous postal delivery from Ft. Collins Colorado of Daniel E. Petersen’s brief on the Bankruptcy .
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Trust Guy View Post
    Pre 1842 . Hummm . . . I’ll need to dig out my videos taken at the 1990 Center for Action doo daww and listen to Howard’s account again. I do not recall his stating such . Then again I was somewhat fixated on the Bankruptcy and Reservations of Right aspects for some time . Bankruptcy especially after receiving an anonymous postal delivery from Ft. Collins Colorado of Daniel E. Petersen’s brief on the Bankruptcy .


    How recently did that arrive?

    Can you give us the Case # so I can read it off PACER?

  8. #18
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    Let me think . It was before LeRoy Schweitzer and Dan Petersen left Colorado . So that would have been maybe 1992 ish ?

    It just showed up one day . The Ft. Collins postmark made me think of The Committee of the States folks . Or maybe The Committee of Correspondence ? I’ve forgotten who was active at that time . My little group of study partners reffed and shepardised every cite .

    I’ll look for it today , weather and chores permitting .
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

  9. #19
    That's way before PACER anyway. It would be interesting if you scan it though. I heard that PETERSEN was loosed from prison only to lien some judges and be the first back in for bogus liens on the 2007 legislation. I thought maybe you were talking a bit more recent paper.

    Another thought crossed my mind about this.

    There is one advantage to One Form - and that is all the judges become generic. It once was that there were a variety of different judges for all the different jurisdictions, including Chancery.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #20
    Senior Member Trust Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seated : County of Madison
    Posts
    152
    Well, it’s not upstairs here . Be happy to scan it on up . Should be easy to spot provided I locate the right case of references . Generated a thick binder of law library copies .

    I can not be certain of the time frame . I’m remembering this study being before I got neck deep in the Buck Act and Government in Trust .

    Still a few specialized Judges . There are something like 19 or 21 authorized Federal tax case Judges that circuit ride out of DC . If you can get to them rather than be duped into IRS Tax “Court” . If you’re charged criminally they are easier to schedule . But a lawyer doesn’t seem to know about such things and represents you right into acquiesce to an unqualified personage presiding .

    What a racket .

    I also consider this part of an effective questioning of Trust in traffic matters . Trust matters belong in Equity . The Traffic Court is usually an administrative function often openly overseen by a Magistrate .
    Last edited by Trust Guy; 05-23-11 at 02:35 PM. Reason: missed a para
    Not to be construed as Legal Advice, nor a recommended Course of Action. I will stand corrected.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •